They Pass The Test: D-
Afghan Christian Convert Drops Out of Sight After Release
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
(Associated press)
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
(Associated press)
KABUL, Afghanistan — An Afghan man who had faced the death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity quickly vanished Tuesday after he was released from prison, apparently out of fear for his life with Muslim clerics still demanding his death.
The United Nations said it is working to find a country willing to grant asylum to Abdul Rahman, who has appealed to leave Afghanistan. Italian Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini will ask his government to accept Rahman, the Italian government said in a statement.
Rahman, 41, was released from the high-security Policharki prison on the outskirts of Kabul late Monday, Afghan Justice Minister Mohammed Sarwar Danish told The Associated Press.
"We released him last night because the prosecutors told us to," he said. "His family was there when he was freed, but I don't know where he was taken."
Deputy Attorney-General Mohammed Eshak Aloko said prosecutors had issued a letter calling for Rahman's release because "he was mentally unfit to stand trial." He also said he did not know where Rahman had gone after being released.
He said Rahman may be sent overseas for medical treatment.
On Monday, hundreds of clerics, students and others chanting "Death to Christians!" marched through the northern Afghan city of Mazar-e-Sharif to protest the court decision Sunday to dismiss the case. Several Muslim clerics threatened to incite Afghans to kill Rahman if he is freed, saying that he is clearly guilty of apostasy and deserves to die.
"Abdul Rahman must be killed. Islam demands it," said senior Cleric Faiez Mohammed, from the nearby northern city of Kunduz. "The Christian foreigners occupying Afghanistan are attacking our religion."
Rahman was arrested last month after police discovered him with a Bible during a custody dispute over his two daughters. He was put on trial last week for converting 16 years ago while he was a medical aid worker for an international Christian group helping Afghan refugees in Pakistan. He faced the death penalty under Afghanistan's Islamic laws.
The case set off an outcry in the United States and other nations that helped oust the hard-line Taliban regime in late 2001 and provide aid and military support for Afghan President Hamid Karzai. President Bush and others had insisted Afghanistan protect personal beliefs.
U.N. spokesman Adrian Edwards said Rahman has asked for asylum outside Afghanistan.
"We expect this will be provided by one of the countries interested in a peaceful solution to this case," he said.
Fini, the Italian foreign minister who is also deputy premier, will seek permission to grant Rahman asylum at a Cabinet meeting Wednesday, a Foreign Ministry statement said.
Fini had earlier expressed Italy's "indignation" over the case. Pope Benedict XVI also appealed to Karzai to protect Rahman.
Italy has close ties with Afghanistan, whose former king, Mohammed Zaher Shah, was allowed to live with his family in exile in Rome for 30 years. The former royals returned to Kabul after the fall of the Taliban regime a few years ago.
Asked whether the U.S. government was doing anything to secure Rahman's safety after his release, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington that where he goes after being freed is "up to Mr. Rahman." He urged Afghans not to resort to violence even if they are unhappy with the resolution of the case.
The international outrage over Rahman's case put Karzai in a difficult position because he also risked offending religious sensibilities in Afghanistan, where senior Muslim clerics have been united in calling for Rahman to be executed.
posted by John | 6:51 AM
8 Comments:
Wow,,,this is your idea of "passing the test"?? Amazing. You do realize that Iraq has the same "repugnacy clause" in its Constitution, don't you? There can be NO freedom without freedom of religion and the US nor its allies have assured either country freedom as long as "repugnacy clauses" are in their Constitutions. Now, instead of being executed by the State, all people who convert to another religion outside of Islam will be killed by a Mullah's order or have to flea the country. Is this "passing the test"??
Amazing what a simple mouthpiece you have become for the Republican Party, Republicus. Also, please dont' try and use Ms. Rice's quaint excuse that it's because it is a young democracy as the U.S. once was. There is a reason that we call the following the FIRST Amendment in the Bill of Rights:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
It is sad to me that a self described "conservative" would not put any thought into these posts and claim that since one individual simply had to flea for his life instead of being executed, anybody "passed the test".
Anonymous complained:
"Wow,,,this is your idea of "passing the test"??"
Barely. They got a D-.
"Amazing. You do realize that Iraq has the same "repugnacy clause" in its Constitution, don't you?"
We had one for slavery.
"There can be NO freedom without freedom of religion..."
Agreed.
"...and the US nor its allies have assured either country freedom as long as "repugnacy clauses" are in their Constitutions."
The repugnant man was freed.
"Now, instead of being executed by the State, all people who convert to another religion outside of Islam will be killed by a Mullah's order or have to flea the country."
"Instead of being executed by the state" is not something to jeer about as if there has been no significant change at the state level.
"Is this "passing the test"??
Yes. D-.
An "F" would have been if the State was subjected to the demands of the *demoted* clerics and had the man executed (as he would have been had the Taliban still been the State).
"Amazing what a simple mouthpiece you have become for the Republican Party, Republicus."
Amazing what a simplistic sponge you have become for opposition propaganda, Anonymous, characterizing everything as a failed "debacle."
Can it be presumed that you, at least, support the invasion of Afghanistan, the toppling of the Taliban, and the decimation of Al Qaeda headquarters?
Then what? Walk away?
Or engage in the genocide of Islamicists?
Our best hope is to enable and nurture constitutional governments which trump the malignancies of cultish Islamicism, derail their dictates, and, in time, marginalize their influence.
The dictate here was that the man be executed.
That dictate was derailed.
"Also, please dont' try and use Ms. Rice's quaint excuse that it's because it is a young democracy as the U.S. once was."
Why? She's right. There's no magic wand solution save the genocide of Islamicists.
Is that what you would prescribe?
Or, rather, set up a system of government that clashes with its monomania and forces it to moderate itself or head for the caves of Tora Bora?
"There is a reason that we call the following the FIRST Amendment in the Bill of Rights:
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'"
We cannot impose our own customized Constitution verbatim.
That would be imperialism.
It seems that you're angry because the Bush Administration is not--in fact--"waging a war against Islam" and/or acting like a good Imperialist power, after all.
"It is sad to me that a self described 'conservative' would not put any thought into these posts and claim that since one individual simply had to flea for his life instead of being executed, anybody 'passed the test'."
Republicus gave them a D-.
My thinking is that Anonymous did not see the D- ...assuming instead that it was a :D
Hang on Republicus...could you please show me any clause that deals with slavery in the Constitution? (what you referred to as our own repugnacy clause) If you try to use the 5th Amendment, I'll assume you are simply desperate. Although both despicable, you cannot accurately compare slavery to freedom of religion (and therefore expression and therefore the right to express criticism of slavery)
If we cannot force the Afghanistan government to set up a secular government that does not follow the Sharia, we have done nothing more than dislodge one theocrastic government with another.
How long before this little issue shows it's head in Iraq?
What happens when the burka's come back because some Mullah's decide it is validated by Sharia?
This whole operation is becoming a joke. We failed to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. Heroin production is up expontentially (granted the Taliban was one big reason for the decline) Our troops are still over there along with the German's and Italian's. Al Qaeda has grown, not shrunk. And now, we find that BASIC rights which all other rights must flow from are simply being ignored.
My biggest fear is if this is duplicated in Iraq. All this talk about "liberating" countries really goes out the window if this repugnancy clauses remain in the Constitutions. Iraq would actually become more repressive in a number of manners as long as that clause remains.
This is by no means "passing the test", and it is all very tragic.
Anonymous requested:
"Hang on Republicus...could you please show me any clause that deals with slavery in the Constitution?"
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 2
"...(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)"
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."
Kelly said...
"My thinking is that Anonymous did not see the D- ...assuming instead that it was a :D."
lol
Anonymous complained:
"If we cannot force the Afghanistan government to set up a secular government that does not follow the Sharia, we have done nothing more than dislodge one theocrastic government with another."
The repugnant man was freed. By the State.
Insanity yet again. John, he was not simply "freed". The charges were dismissed as lacking evidence. Do you realize what that means? That means that that law is still in effect. This is hardly a victory. Compass Direct has already reported at least three more men have been arrested under the same charge.
I think I've figured out why you think they "Passed the Test". It's because you have grown accustomed to this administration that the bar is so low it would more difficult to get under it than go over it.
Anonymous foreboded:
"My biggest fear is if this is duplicated in Iraq. All this talk about "liberating" countries really goes out the window if this repugnancy clauses remain in the Constitutions. Iraq would actually become more repressive in a number of manners as long as that clause remains."
You're right. But in this case, it didn't get it's way, which is encouraging.
I don't know why the Western advisors in the drafting of the Constitutions let that slide in.
Perhaps unfamiliarity and a rush to meet deadlines.
Post a Comment
<< Home